A Utah couple created this Obama sock puppet to sell on their website. According to KSL they claim to have plans to make puppets of other figures such as McCain and the leader of Iran. I’m trying to imagine what would make a McCain puppet look like McCain? Perhaps a lopsided neck? Would that be funny or appropriate? But so far they’ve only made the Obama one. They see nothing wrong with this. How about you?

I recently had to explain to my IL’s why my husband and I didn’t want them calling our biracial child a “little monkey”. I’m AA and have had that term applied to me growning up. So, I can believe that there are those who are unaware of the history behind the doll. However, I find the fact that the owners of this business and several others refuse to see why some would be offended.

Having grown up in Utah, yes, it truly is possible to not know. There are so few black people here, it is possible to be quite ignorant of a lot of things. Do not interpret this observation as a defense of what is indefensible, however. I will also say that there is a way to interpret this innocently; the depiction itself it not undignified; it’s possible to interpret this in a way that says they’re going for cute. If they actually WANTED to be racist, they could have made the thing more ugly. If you DON’T have the Jim Crow legacy, which we don’t here in Utah, we never had laws like that, it may not have, for them, the kind of freighted meaning that it has for you. Do we, as Christians, have a responsibility to give people the benefit of the doubt? When there are a multitude of interpretations to make, does it say more about us, or about the offending party, that we automatically go to the MOST offensive interpretation FIRST?

Viewed in this light, though ignorance is not a defense, if they WERE simply ignorant, then they ARE less culpable than those hurling the “McChimpy” slur, who CLEARLY are trying to be insulting and DO know what they are doing.

I was thinking along the same lines as Jeff (#15). When you grow up in a place almost entirely devoid of black people, you won’t necessarily develop a sensitivity to these kinds of things. So I’m willing to believe that there was no malice behind it. I could imagine some of my family members thinking it was cute and not registering that it would be offensive. Of course, once people are clued in to the racial overtones they should cease and desist.

If no overt racism was intended then they are simply ignorant of the US history on race relations and certain historical slur words and cartoon caricatures used in racist publishing in our historical past

I must confess I don’t completely understand the strong feelings I’m seeing here on this. When I saw the picture, my first thought was “Cute, a sock monkey!” followed by “Gee, would a sock monkey McCain look like McCain? I wonder what makes the sock monkey look like Obama? Oh. Hm. I bet some people aren’t going to like that.”

For the record, the physical traits most often referred to when making any kind of comparison between African-type people and monkeys (like, say plump lips) are actually traits that are unique to homo sapiens sapiens. Other primates lack the subcutaneous fat that fills out our faces (and other body parts).

PDoE,
The reaction isn’t to this particular sock monkey, which, itself, may be plenty cute. Rather, it’s to the historical baggage that associating a monkey and an African American man carries.

And I admit, the people who make it may have been so out-of-touch that they weren’t aware of the baggage. But that they continue to press their case after being confronted makes it even more inexcusable.

The toymakers are not LDS. That didn’t stop the Tribune from publishing Pat Bagley’s odious cartoon crammed with every imaginable Mormon stereotype, as if the makers *were* LDS and their ignorance were somehow a function of religion.

I’m LDS and grew up in NH but currently live in Southern TX, I don’t care where you live, it is just thoughtless, ignorant, stupid, complete thoughtless. I am so embarrassed, I really hope they are some of the non-LDS people living in Utah.

wow – you can’t tell me that someone who grows up in the US can honestly be oblivious to how this could be offensive. I kind of liked the cartoon by Ardis – if a Mormon can find offense in the cartoon, then maybe they could see how some could be offended by the monkey…

Ardis I suspect he had been listening to the myriad of talk radio shows here where people had been calling in asking what the fuss was about and complaining about society being too politically correct. Normally I’d agree but I think the historic baggage in this case is such that it goes well beyond political correctness. I think the problem is that Utah’s so isolated from the racism of the South that most of these connotations just aren’t understood. (Which isn’t to say Utah hasn’t had its own form of racism – just that the symbols were often different)

It was interesting. I was listening to KSL yesterday as I picked my wife up from the doctor and a black guy from Utah county called in not understanding what the fuss was about. (He was born and raised here)

By embracing stereotypes I meant the whole green jello, lots of kids, “oh my heck,” and other stuff. I didn’t see any particular stereotypes in the cartoon. Maybe I’m just as ignorant as the other Utahns?

Devyn, jjohnsen, I think you can grow up in the U.S. and not learn a sensitivity to these things. We’re looking at this as people who are tuned in to the zeitgeist. We know about all the political scandals and high-profile breaches of political correctness because we follow this kind of stuff and participate in conversations about it. But not everybody is tuned in to this kind of thing. George Allen’s “Macaca” moment was mentioned upthread. I would bet that 85% of the U.S. population doesn’t know what that’s referring to. A lot of people don’t pay attention to this kind of thing. There’s no class in school where you learn how to avoid all the different ways to be racially insensitive. And when you go through life not having any personal interactions with people of certain races you don’t learn sensitivity by practice. I only know that the monkey thing has a history because I heard of some sportscaster being fired back in the 70’s for saying something like, “Look at that monkey run!”

So, again, I think it’s plausible, even likely, that there was no malice intended. And I don’t think you have to be a moron to not have a sensitivity about these things. I’m sure there are a lot of non-moronic, non-racist people in your family and mine who wouldn’t think twice about the Obama sock puppet. They might see the problem once you point it out to them, but they won’t have an instinctual negative reaction.

Tom,
I don’t know how widely the Macaca comment went; I was in Virginia at the time, so it clearly made a big splash all around me.

As for the racial insensitivity: even granting that they (and the manufacturer and whomever else was in on the loop) were unaware of the baggage, as soon as they started getting blowback, you’d think they would have done a little research, and maybe apologized. Or at least kept quiet. But instead, they appear to have argued that it’s not a big deal (at least based on my reading of the article). At that point, the ignorance excuse has left the building.

Tom, people find the stereotype of an overweight woman popping prosac that offensive? Really? How many Mormons make fun of that stereotype? For that many how man BYU Coed jokes told by BYU students use that sort of stereotype. Can it really be an offensive stereotype when the community stereotyped are the very ones making use of it?

Oh, I agree with your other comments Tom. I think there are plenty of racial stereotypes that people are ignorant of. Especially as the rising generation comes from a period where racism just isn’t acceptable. How would they hear the stereotypes? How would they find out what is or isn’t acceptable?

Cosell drew criticism during one Monday Night Football telecast in September 1983, for stating “look at that little monkey go,” when he referred to a play by black receiver Alvin Garrett of the Washington Redskins regarding a run after a reception. While some saw “little monkey” as a racial slur, others who knew Cosell were quick to point out that he used this term routinely in an approving way to describe quicker, smaller players of all ethnicities. Among the evidence adduced to support this claim is video footage of a 1972 preseason game, between the New York Giants and the Kansas City Chiefs, during which Cosell refers to Mike Adamle, a 5-foot-9-inch, 197-pound white, as a “little monkey.”

In another incident, four years later:

Campanis’ infamous remarks took place on the late-night ABC News program Nightline, coinciding with the 40th anniversary of Jackie Robinson’s Major League Baseball debut (April 15, 1947). Campanis, who had played alongside Robinson and was known for being close to him, was being interviewed about the subject. Nightline anchorman Ted Koppel asked him why, at the time, there had been few black managers and no black general managers in Major League Baseball. Campanis’ reply was that blacks “may not have some of the necessities to be, let’s say, a field manager, or, perhaps, a general manager” for these positions. Elsewhere in the interview he said that blacks are often poor swimmers “because they don’t have the buoyancy.” Koppel says he gave Campanis several opportunities to clarify (“Do you really believe that?”) or back down on his remarks but Campanis confirmed his views with his replies. A protest erupted the next morning and he resigned two days later.

Clark, #42, Your words, which I think are intended as some sort of refutation, ring hollow. The rhetoric isn’t communicating well. Even if such stereotypes were common at BYU for example, which in my current experience, they are not, that would not change the the fact that mocking LDS women as overweight pill poppers is rude and distasteful. Depression is a serious illness. Two wrongs, (one of which is incidentally non-existent) don’t make a right.

I think Trevor there are two issues. One is whether people find something offensive versus whether there are things a community finds offensive. There are plenty of stereotypes that individual Mormons find offensive that the Mormon community as a whole doesn’t (or vice versa).

Now you can say certain stereotypes ought be found offensive but that says nothing about whether they are found offensive. My point is that many LDS stereotypes are embraced and used by the Utah LDS community and as such can’t be judged offensive to that community. Certainly individuals will find it offensive. But then we’re talking about a community in which individuals found Rodin sculptures offensive. (grin)

As to whether overweight women popping pills should intrinsically be off-limits I’d probably disagree. I just don’t think it has the history that say monkey-African American comparison does.

Clark I will grant you the argument on normative grounds, but that cuts both ways, the positive is versus the normative ought, neither one of us can offer much factual insight on the subject. I am not one for super political correctness, but I do think that religious/race/mental capacity/sexual orientation based stereotypes are counter-productive, and frequently hurtful. I don’t believe that treating clinical depression as a grounds for the criticism “gee look at how funny and weird x group is”, ought to be acceptable. Maybe I am just oversensitive but I believe that the potential for harm is there.

If you disagree I am perfectly happy to say “more power to you”. But I will challenge you on assertions that Mormons are ok with accusations of being overweight pill-poppers, you assert that this is some sort of BYU norm, and I have never seen it, lacking evidence to the contrary my opinion is as valid, or perhaps more valid than yours, (if you are not actively involved in the BYU community, which maybe you are, I don’t know.)

On another note, I find myself agreeing with other things you post at other places, so no hard feelings (counter-grin).

Trevor, I don’t disagree in the least. I come from the school of thought where you just try and figure out, as best you can, what is likely to be hurtful to some people and act accordingly. It then is only a problem in cases, like Rodin, of whether you ought respect their feelings. (With regards to Rodin I think it was incorrect to respect what was offensive to this small ground)

So don’t get me wrong. I’d never use these stereotypes. Just that if the cartoon was trying to communicate how African Americans felt by using Mormon stereotypes it failed since the majority of people don’t find those stereotypes offensive. Those who do probably already knew the issue with the doll.

As to the issue of normative use, that’s always the issue. I can but say I heard such stereotypes and jokes pretty darn frequently the years I’ve lived here in Provo. And not from non-members.

Stereotypes aren’t all bad. Christ has been stereotyped as gentle and meek and patient, when he often proved to be abusive (e.g., the cat-o-nine-tails episode), angry (he brought the phrase “brood of vipers” into the vernacular), and quick to attack dissenters (like when he called people “whited sepulchers” or smote the tree that didn’t provide nourishment). Without this stereotype, it is unlikely that Christianity could survive.

I do not believe there is any way whatsoever that they made a doll of a black man a monkey without racial commentary being their intent. This is disgusting. It has nothing to do with political correctness or stereotypes. It is blatantly racist.

For the record I find it hard to believe that they’d go to the effort of making a business out of this without being aware of the racist overtones. I can understand some people being ignorant of the overtones but I’m really skeptical the people making the doll were.

They have their site back up, with a doll that looks nothing like McCain, as well as the Obama puppet.http://sockpoliticians.googlepages.com/index.html
I note that it is hosted at google pages and payment goes through paypal, if anyone wants to express disgust to those two companies. The Trib’s coverage of this includes links to a letter from the pair to the media about their reasoning. (I think the spam filter will catch it if I try to post another link here, especially since I can never remember how to do links in comments the spiffy way.)

Okay, if McCain had also been a monkey, that maybe would have mitigated things a little bit. (Right, it wouldn’t have, but still . . .) As is, it is straight-up racist. (And like Clark said, if they planned to do this as a business, maybe they should have, I don’t know, researched a little.)

Wow. I’m sorry, but that’s just incredibly racist and terribly wrong. A sock puppet is one thing, but why choose a primate for Obama? And anyway, isn’t polking fun at presidential candidates a bit disrespectful to our country AND political system. Okay, grated probably all of us have lost a great deal of respect for politics in these past years, but why add fuel to the fire?